Expressing the sense of the Congress that, as Congress recognizes the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision, all Americans are encouraged to observe this anniversary with a commitment to continuing and building on the legacy of Brown.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me remind all of my colleagues that we are talking about 44 million Americans who have no health insurance. They get to the doctor, albeit very late, they get to the hospitals, albeit very late, they die sooner, and they have higher health care costs that we all who have health insurance pay for. It all ends up in the size of our bill.

But the bigger disgrace is that there are 44 million Americans who have no health insurance, no preventive care; and we are attempting to do something about it. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) denigrated these interstate plans as scams that could go corrupt. Let me see. If I recall, we have companies like General Electric which have employees in virtually every State. They have a plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. How about the Teamsters? I would say the Teamsters have plans that cover virtually every State.

Why would we not allow small employers that belong to the NFIB, belong to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, belong to the Electrical Contractors Association, why would we not let them come together to form the same kinds of health insurance plans that large companies and unions offer from coast to coast? What do we have to fear? What do we have to fear in trying to help 44 million Americans have a chance at good health insurance?

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, those regulatory requirements are not on the GEs that we talked about, they are not on the Teamsters, they are not on other big employer or union plans. They are governed under a Federal statute called ERISA that has worked very well to insure and provide the basis for health insurance in America, and we ought to trust small businesses that would join these associations and give them the same rights that big companies and unions have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I remind my colleagues one more time that we are talking about trying to assist 44 million Americans who have no health insurance. This may not be the perfect product, it may not be the perfect package, but for the life of me, I cannot understand why people do not want to come to the plate and try to do something to help these Americans who do not have access to affordable health insurance.

Maybe the answer is what we just heard from my good friend and colleague, a member of the committee from the other end of the great State of Ohio who wants a single-payer national health plan. I think most Americans looked up in the mid-1990s when this idea was floating around and said, Oh, no. No, no, I like my health insurance. I like going to the doctor I choose. I do not need the government running my health insurance plan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

With all due respect to my good friend from North Dakota who is one of the real experts on insurance and pension matters in the House, he is a former State insurance regulator, we have heard this claim that Governors, State insurance regulators and attorneys general are opposed to this bill. Of course they are. Every State, we know what they want to do. They want to regulate, regulate, regulate, regulate.

Let us go back to the example. The Procter & Gambles, the GEs, the Teamsters, they are not regulating those plans. They have got some of the best benefits that they offer to their employees. Let us go back to your example of the dry cleaner. The dry cleaner does not have the actuary. He has got the regulator, the attorney general. What if all those dry cleaners in a State, the State of North Dakota, or all those dry cleaners from around the country in their national association came together and formed an association health care plan? Those employees at that local dry cleaner would have better benefits at more competitive prices than they could ever get in a State insurance risk pool.

What do we have to fear from giving those small employers and, more importantly, their employees the chance to come together to have the same kind of a plan that big companies and unions have today?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

We often have debates here in Congress about public policy and how to change public policy. Many times the debates, once they get here, the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. We do not claim that the underlying bill is going to cover all of the uninsured and eliminate that problem, but we do think it is a giant step forward in helping the uninsured get access to high-quality health insurance at affordable prices.

Even the flawed study that my colleague has pointed to on a number of occasions, the CBO study which was flawed in a number of areas, says that 330,000 of the uninsured will in fact get health insurance. I think the number is far, far higher than that. I think we are talking about millions of Americans will have a chance at good health insurance. But let us say it is only 330,000, 330,000 families that would get coverage under this bill. I think that is a good step in the right direction.

Let me take an example of how this would work. Let us take a Realtor. We all know Realtors work all over the country. They are independent contractors. They have their own business. In many cases they are not employees of the firm that they work for, but they have to go buy an individual policy or family policy in a State insurance pool, the most expensive way to buy health insurance in America. In the case of Realtors, you could take the Ohio Association of Realtors, New Jersey Association of Realtors, maybe the National Association of Realtors, could put together a plan of maybe 5 or 6 choices, maybe 10 choices for their members all over the country. I will guarantee that those Realtors would have much better health insurance policies than they have today and the cost of that policy will be far more competitive than what they are paying in these State insurance pools.

This is a very good opportunity to help many small employers and their employees all across the country. We should not miss this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), one of the active members of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I believe that the underlying bill does, in fact, address the needs of many of our uninsured, and I am concerned about the substitute that we have before us. And I know that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), my good friends from the committee, have worked hard on this. But I have to take issue with the comment that was just said that this commits the Congress to spend money. It does not.

There is a $50 billion price tag on the substitute that we have before us, and all we do here is authorize it. It still has to go through the entire appropriation process, no guarantee that it is going to be appropriated; but even more troubling is that the substitute that is being offered would allow the Secretary of Labor to set up this national risk pool, but they would still be subject to every state- mandated benefit in each of the States, over 1,500 state-mandated benefits from one coast to the next. And on top of that, even if the Congress were to appropriate the money and the Secretary were to set up the plan, employers would still have to pay 50 percent of the premium cost, and they would have to cover every employee who was there as little as 3 months.

If we begin to look at how this plan would work, I think that the Members will find that it would actually be cheaper for those companies to get health insurance in their own States without this national bureaucracy.

But even more disturbingly, when we look at this substitute, it will not cover any of the self-employed individuals across the country, and whether they be Realtors, whether they be salesmen of some sort, small business people who operate by themselves, the self-employed, no coverage under this plan. Unlike under the underlying plan where if these self-employed people belong to some association, some State association, national association, local association, they would, in fact, be able to work through their associations to get high-quality coverage at competitive prices.

There has been a lot said about who is supporting the underlying bill and who is opposing the underlying bill. I have got pages and pages here of national associations and State associations that are supporting the underlying bipartisan bill. And I would remind my colleagues that this is the fourth time we have had this bill on the floor in the last 8 years, still waiting for the other body to deal with it. All three times previously that this bill has been on the floor, it has passed with broad bipartisan majorities, and I would suspect today we will see the same benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the list of companies and associations that are supporting the underlying bill.

groups supporting AHPs

Adhesive and Sealant Council

Air Conditioning Contractors of America

American Alliance of Service Providers

American Association of Advertising Agencies

American Association of Engineering Societies

American Association of Small Property Owners

American Composites Manufacturers Association

American Concrete Pumping Association

American Council of Engineering Companies

American Disc Jockey Association

American Electronics Association

American Furniture Manufacturers Association

American Institute of Chemical Engineers

American International Automobile Dealers Association

American Hotel and Lodging Association

American Lighting Association

American Nursery and Landscape Association

American Rental Association

American Road and Transportation Builders Association

American Small Businesses Association

American Society of Association Executives

American Society of Civil Engineers

American Society of Home Inspectors

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Board on Member

Interests & Development

American Textile Machinery Association

American Veterinary Medical Association

American Wholesale Marketers Association

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my two committee colleagues, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), and their thoughtful approach to bringing their substitute to the floor.

As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) pointed out, there are some similarities here. We both create large pools of small employers in order to increase their purchasing power so that they can go into the marketplace like a large company or union and get as good a quality plan at a competitive price. But once you get beyond the big picture, that we are creating large pools in both the substitute and the underlying bill, there are a few differences.

The first difference I would say is that the underlying bill allows the private sector to create those large pools. Whether they be State associations, national associations, whatever, they will in fact create their own pools, while the substitute offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) has the government creating this large pool.

Now, we all know when the government gets involved, it is just a matter of time before the government begins to believe, well, we have this large pool, we have got employers signed up in it, maybe we ought to require them to do X or Y or Z. I do not think anyone wants to take that risk.

Secondly, I would point out that the substitute pool will cost $50 billion of taxpayer funds in order to set up and to provide subsidies, while the underlying bill has no Federal taxpayer money involved in it in any way, shape, or form.

I am a big believer that we need to do something to reach out to help the uninsured gain better access to high-quality, affordable health insurance. I

think the underlying bill does it. It has passed on a broad bipartisan basis on a number of occasions here in the House. I urge my colleagues here today to reject the Kind-Andrews substitute and support the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, AHPs that would self-insure are exempted from State insurance mandates exactly like large company plans and union plans all over the country. We all know that health insurance mandates drive up the cost of health insurance. When the cost of health insurance goes up for small employers, it is their employees who lose coverage.

The underlying bill attempts to help the 44 million Americans who do not have health insurance have a better chance of getting health insurance. And small employers, just because of their size, should not be denied the right to group together to get a better-quality product at a more competitive price for their employees.

I urge my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit, the same motion to recommit this House rejected last year, and to support the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), for whom I have the most profound respect, the ranking Democrat member of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

My friend from Maryland, whom I respect very much, when they talk about the number of people who would gain insurance with AHPs, the Congressional Budget Office drew the conclusion that the vast majority of members of AHPs would not be newly-insured people. They would be people shifted from existing plans into the AHPs.

I think the better authority is that one million people, net, one million more people would be uninsured as a result of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I assume the gentleman's question was not rhetorical. What we have to fear, we should listen to the advice of attorneys general and Governors and insurance commissioners from around the country who say we have to fear this: we have to fear a poorly regulated or unregulated structure that is not properly accountable under fiduciary standards and has no experience in running insurance companies, which is why they oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), another voice who joins the coalition of AFL-CIO, 66 chambers of commerce and the National Governors Association, a gentleman who has brought great honor to this House during his Presidential campaign.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly take up the challenge to present a better idea, which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and I will be doing in a few minutes under the alternative. We understand that the American Academy of Actuaries, a group with no vested interest in this debate, has concluded that 1 million people will be added to the roles of the uninsured by this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), who had a career in State government in insurance regulation and, frankly, I think knows more about this subject than any other Member of the House.

Mr. Speaker I yield myself the balance of my time.

I agree completely with the chairman that the number one issue on the health care agenda of this country is finding insurance for the 43, 44 million uninsured. I agree with him completely that it is a worthy project for this House to pursue. Long overdue. Usually it does not persuade me when you submit a list of people who are against a bill or for a bill, because I think each one of us has the obligation to make our own judgment about these matters, as each one of us should here.

At this point in the Record, by the way, I include the Mercer study to which I referred, the actuarial study to which I referred, and the letter from the Congressional Budget Office to which I referred.

[Prepared for: National Small Business United, June 2003]

Impact of Association Health Plan Legislation on Premiums and Coverage

for Small Employers

(By Beth Fritchen, FSA, MAAA; and Karen Bender, FCA, ASA, MAAA, Mercer

Risk, Finance & Insurance)

executive summary

National Small Business United (NSBU) engaged Mercer Risk,

Finance & Insurance (Mercer) to analyze the ``Small Business

Health Fairness Act of 2003'' (H.R. 660 and S. 545). This

legislation would encourage the formation of federally

certified Association Health Plans (AHPs) by exempting these

plans from various state laws that govern health insurance

sold to small employers today.

Proponents of H.R. 660 and S. 545 argue that federally

certified AHPs would expand access to affordable health

insurance for small employers and reduce the number of

uninsured. Opponents believe the legislation would have the

exact opposite effect--that is, it would cause premiums to

rise and the number of uninsured to increase.

Mercer developed an actuarial model to assess how this

legislation would affect premiums for small firms that

purchase state-regulated coverage and firms that enroll in

AHPs over a four year period as well as the impact on the

number of uninsured.

The analysis concludes that federal AHP legislation would

not alleviate the health insurance cost pressures faced by

small employers. Rather, the proposed AHP legislation would

have a detrimental impact on small employer premiums,

especially for firms with high-cost workers, and would cause

a significant number of small employers to drop coverage,

thereby increasing the nation's uninsured population.

In brief, we found that once federal AHP legislation was

fully implemented:

Health insurance costs would increase significantly for

small businesses in the state-regulated insurance market.

Health insurance premiums would increase by 23% for small

employers that continued to purchase state-regulated coverage

This increase would result from AHPs' ability to attract

healthier-than-average firms out of the state-regulated

market. AHPs' exemption from mandated benefits would allow

them to tailor products attractive to healthier populations.

Moreover, exemption from sate limits on premiums and

marketing standards would allow AHPs to enroll healthier-

than-average groups and encourage firms with high cost

workers to switch back to the state-regulated market.

As AHPs attract small employers whose perceived health

status is good, firms with greater expected health care

utilization would remain in the state-regulated market, where

they have the protection of mandated benefits and other

requirements. The resulting outflow of low-cost groups from

the state-regulated market and the remaining concentration of

high-cost groups would start an adverse selection spiral that

would accelerate premium increases for employers in the

state-regulated market.

AHP legislation would increase, not decrease, the number of

uninsured. The number of uninsured would increase by over 1

million as a result of coverage losses among workers in small

firms and their dependents. As premiums for small employers

in the sate-regulated market increased, some firms would drop

coverage and not switch to an AHP. Coverage declines would

also result when groups covered by AHPs drop their coverage

when their rates increase because someone in the group gets

sick. While some of these groups would switch back to the

state-regulated market, others would drop coverage entirely.

Federal AHPs would gain a pricing advantage through risk-

selection, not greater administrative efficiency. The

modeling predicts that after four years premiums for AHPs

would average 10% below that of the existing small group

market. However, we expect these price reductions to result

from favorable risk selection and exclusion of benefits

rather than improved purchasing efficiency or lower

administrative costs. AHPs could use a variety of techniques

to select healthier-than-average firms--techniques available

to AHPs because the legislation preempts key provisions of

state law designed to prevent risk selection.

Specifically, under H.R. 660 and S. 545 AHPs could: charge

firms with high-cost workers much higher premiums than

permitted under state law; experience rate each association

based on the risk of only their members; and offer pared-down

products without benefits that would be needed or desired by

higher-risk small employers. Together, these strategies would

allow AHPs to offer the most attractive rates to healthy

groups and avoid the cross-subsidies that state small

employer health insurance reforms require.

Federal AHPs would insure the healthiest small employers.

The modeling estimates that the average morbidity (a measure

of whether a firm is ``sick'' or ``healthy'') of firms

enrolling in AHPs would be 21% lower than the average

morbidity of small employers in the market today. Further, as

higher-cost small employers dropped coverage in response to

rate increases resulting from the movement of healthy

employers out of the state-regulated market, the average

morbidity of the uninsured population would increase by

12.3%. AHPs would appeal most to firms with younger workers

given the close correlation between age and health status.

Small employers would face higher premiums overall. Average

small employer premiums (considering both cost increases for

the state-regulated market and premium reductions for AHPs)

would increase by 6%. Average premiums would increase because

the size of the average premium increase for the population

remaining in the state-regulated market (23%) would outweigh

the smaller average premium decrease for those covered by

AHPs (10%).

These results indicate that AHP legislation is not a

solution to rising health care costs for small employers.

While some firms obtaining coverage through AHPs may see

lower premiums, firms with higher-cost employees would see

their premiums increase. Overall, small employers would pay

higher premiums and the uninsured population would increase

if this legislation were enacted.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my coauthor, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), for what has now been more than a year of hard work on this effort, a very practical, commonsense solution that would not have been possible without him; and I thank him for his effort.

It is important to understand how this proposal works. If a small employer, and we define that as an employer with 100 or fewer employees, chooses, only if he or she chooses, they may enroll their employees in a plan that would operate similarly to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. It would create the largest purchasing pool of small businesses ever in the history of the country. It would achieve the economies of scale that the majority attempts to achieve in the underlying bill. But there are some important differences.

The first difference is that we believe our plan would in fact save money for that employer. In my home State, a small business pays about $12,000 or $13,000 a year to insure an employee and his or her family. The average cost under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan is slightly over $9,000. We believe a similar price reduction would occur by the option of joining this plan.

Secondly, under our plan, for very small employers, those with 25 and under, they would receive a 5 percent premium discount. That is to say, their premium would only be 95 percent of the premium paid by the others in the pool.

Thirdly, very small employers with a lot of low-income employees, those who are most likely to be uninsured, are offered additional subsidies that are drawn from the budget resolution passed by the majority. This fits within the majority's budget resolution.

So the first important difference is our version, our plan, would add to the rolls of the insured rather than subtracting from it the way the majority's plan would.

Second, under our plan, none of the protections that people enjoy, the right to a mammogram, the right to women's health services, the right to mental health services, guaranteed under State laws around the country, none of those rights would be lost or forfeited under our plan.

Third, the risks of insolvency, unpaid creditors, uninsured insurers that the majority's plan proposes, would be avoided here, because you would have a large plan under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Federal Government that would be solvent and would be prepared to meet its obligations because it is properly regulated.

This is a commonsense idea. We believe in pooling as well. Frankly, I think that the majority has half of a good idea. The idea of permitting small employers to pool their employees to get a better deal from the health insurance marketplace is a very good idea. The problem is that the majority's plan also includes the repeal and forfeiture of protections like mammogram coverage, like diabetic care, like women's health services; and that is both unnecessary and undesirable.

Second, the majority's plan does not include any subsidies or special incentives for small business. A lot of small businesses in my State, even if you dropped the price of the coverage from $12,000 to $11,000 or $10,000, could still not afford it. It does not do them any good.

Our plan, unlike the majority plan, puts some subsidy into this in the form of premium discounts for very small employers and even deeper discounts for small employers who hire many, many lower-compensated employees.

We have said a lot of critical things about the majority's plan because we believe they are right; but we also understand, Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to put forward a positive alternative. The work that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) has done, that I am proud to join in, is such a positive alternative. It would offer real benefits in a meaningful way for the small business community of the country.

I would urge my colleagues to vote for its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey for the fine work and the leadership that he has shown on such an important issue. This is an important issue.

It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again without any change in the result. Yet that is what we have been having this week in Congress, bills that have already been debated and deliberated upon and voted upon last year coming back again for another kick at the can, which is fine. In an issue as important as this, I think it is important for the Congress to take a moment and start talking about the plight of small businesses and family farmers across the country who are suffering under rising health care costs and fearful of the inability of being able to provide coverage for their families or their employees because of the cost of insurance today.

This is such a fundamental and crucial issue if we want to be serious about economic growth, if we want to be concerned about the 43-million- plus uninsured that exist in this country. As I travel through my congressional district in western Wisconsin meeting with small business owners and their employees, meeting with family farmers, the number one, chief concern that they continuously raise is the expensive health care and accessing the quality system that exists in this country right now on an affordable basis.

It is a travesty that 20 percent of my dairy farmers in Wisconsin have no health coverage at all for themselves or their families, one of the more dangerous occupations in the entire country. It is a travesty that as I talk to small business owners who would like nothing better than to provide some health coverage for their employees, tell me that they cannot because they cannot afford it. In a country as great and as powerful and as wealthy as ours, we have got to do better and we have to get serious.

What we are about to talk about in the remaining minutes of the duration of this debate is there is a better way. The gentleman from New Jersey and I have drafted a substitute to what is being offered before the House today. It is one based in common sense, in reality in regards to what will work and what will not, what will extend coverage to the uninsured and what will not; what will bring more affordability to the health care system, to these small business owners, their employees and to our family farmers, and what will not.

Our bill is very simple. It is based on the Federal Employee Health Plan. It does establish national purchasing pools but it goes through State-licensed insurers so we do not have Federal preemption of State law over such crucial areas as cancer screening, whether it is mammograms, breast cancer, cervical cancer screenings, whether it is emergency care or maternity care, issues that the States have wrestled with with themselves and found it important enough to pass law on a State-to-State basis to provide coverage for these important services. And also to cover autism health care. I am proud that the State of Wisconsin is one of 17 that does mandate the coverage of autism health care for our citizens in the State, one that is exploding right now and very expensive for society. Health care experts and those affected by autism, those families of autistic children, realize that the key to effective treatment is early identification. If we allow this AHP plan to pass, which preempts State law, that says, hey, insurers, you don't have to provide coverage even though the State of Wisconsin says this is the right policy to do, it is only going to exacerbate the system in this country in regard to effective autistic treatment for children in our communities.

That is what this debate is all about. It is a very simple, commonsense approach to dealing with what is a national crisis and, I view, a national emergency.

Rather than offering a piece of legislation where the American Academy of Actuaries, where Mercer has released a study indicating that it would increase rather than decrease the rolls of the uninsured by 1 million people, our substitute version that provides national purchasing options, that provides subsidy payments to employers with 50 or fewer employees in order to keep those health care premiums down and our ability to potentially extend health care coverage to the 43 million uninsured to an additional 33 million Americans, we think this is the best approach to take. This is not an issue about who supports small business or family farmers more or who is more concerned about the plight of the uninsured. This is about what will work and what will not work. That is why we have the National Governors Association, the Republican and Democratic Governors Association, the National Association of Attorneys General and Insurance Commissioners, over 1,000 organizations including 66 chambers of commerce who are saying that the majority AHP plan will not work. Not because they desire some power grab and to maintain their own State regulations, but because it is based on reality and an independent and objective study of what will and what will not work.

That is why I would hope that my colleagues, before they ultimately make up their mind and cast their vote today, that they have a chance to quickly look at the actuary study, to quickly look at the Mercer study and to pause before we embark upon a road that could potentially lead to another million uninsured in our society. Enough is enough.

We need to be going in the opposite direction rather than where I fear the AHP bill would go. The substitute that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and I are offering offers that hope and that potential to achieve that, and I would encourage my colleagues to support the substitute, vote ``no'' on the AHP bill, and let us move forward together on something that has the potential of working very well for small businesses and family farmers throughout the country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), a true champion of small business owners and their employees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), an expert in the health care field and one who does not want to embark upon a course of adding an additional 1 million people to the uninsured ranks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

With all due respect to the chairman of our committee, and I have great respect and admiration for him and I think he is well motivated with this underlying bill, but our bill does, in fact, cover self- employed. Under the definition of what constitutes an employer, an individual who is self-employed would also be covered. So I just wanted to clarify the record in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the co-author of our substitute bill before us.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, again, this debate really is about two very distinct and different options: one that, again, through independent analysis and review, indicates could lead to an increase of 1 million more uninsured in this country, as opposed to the substitute that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and I are offering today; one that is based on reality and supported by a host of organizations throughout the Nation, including the Governors Association, the Attorneys General, and the insurance commissioners, those who work with this on a day-to-day basis and see the real impact it is having on real people in their individual States.

Our plan is simple. It also talks about establishing a national purchasing pool, but one working with state-licensed insurers, so we do not preempt State law and the judgment being made by State legislatures and local decisionmakers on what is or is not appropriate health care coverage in that particular State.

I am proud of many of the coverages that the State of Wisconsin has chosen to include under the State regulations. I am also proud of the fact that the State legislature and Governor are signing into law and setting up model programs of this purchasing pool concept in Wisconsin, allowing small business owners and family farmers to join cooperatives with a menu of health options, but under State regulation, not exempting them and not preempting what the State has already done.

I have a feeling that that is going to work, and work very well, if the demand that exists from back home is any indication of the desire to enter into these pilot programs.

That is the identical version that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and I are offering and talking about today, allowing this purchasing pool concept to go forward under State law, so that important health care services and screening does not get preempted and lead to a diminution in the quality of care that citizens in States have come to expect and desire.

Why is this important? 44 million uninsured is a travesty and a blemish on our national character. It gets to the real root and basis of us and what we are all about as a Nation. Being able to access quality and affordable health care is something that affects all of us, from businesses large and small, from individuals to small business owners, to farmers, to us here in Congress; and the fear we see in constituents' eyes back home when they know they do not have health coverage for their families and their children, it is real.

And when they do not have coverage and they do get sick or they do get hurt, they still are able to access the health care system, just through more expensive means, typically through the emergency door. And those costs then are shifted on to private plans that do have coverage, which contributes to the rising premium expenses that are sweeping the Nation today.

So I think it is in our fundamental national interest to do what we can to make sure that the 43 million or 44 million currently uninsured receive coverage, so we have better preventive care up front, so the children of our Nation have a way to access the health care system, which can save us money and pay dividends in the long run.

I think this is an objective that we share in a bipartisan fashion, but it is one that I think can better be achieved through the Kind- Andrews substitute.

It is paid for within the budget resolution that the majority party has passed in this session of Congress. It does offer premium support payments to employees with 50 or fewer employees, because the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) is correct, even if we have some savings in premium expenses, your average small business employer probably is still prohibited from being able to access an insurance pool and being able to pick up the expense and providing coverage for their employees.

We are saying we can do better by offering them some of this premium price assistance to make it more affordable and to create the incentives so we have small business owners who I believe want desperately to be able to provide coverage, to be in a position to better afford that type of coverage.

This is what we need to try to achieve. This should be a dream we all hold in this Congress. Because unless and until we fix this fundamental flaw in the health care system in our country, we are not going to see the robust job growth that we desperately need today. We are not going to see businesses, either large or small, anxious for additional hires for fear of incurring the additional health care expense. I think it is one of the reasons why we have not seen the explosion of job growth over the last couple of years, even though the administration has been fond of pointing to expanding economic conditions in this country. It is the health care system, and it needs to be addressed.

I think we desperately need to do it, and I think we have the opportunity today to make a significant step in that direction.

I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the majority Associated Health Plan and support a real plan that can work for real Americans, the Kind-Andrews substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, as the Representative for Virginia's Third Congressional District, and the state's first and only Black Congressional Representative since Reconstruction, I take personal pride in celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Virginia played a prominent role in the case. The Davis v. Prince Edward County Public Schools case, one of the cases decided with Brown, was a Virginia case. Also, two of the nation's premier constitutional lawyers in the Brown case came from Virginia. Attorney Oliver Hill, who continues to fight for equal justice for all, and the late Judge Spottswood Robinson, argued the case on behalf of the student plaintiffs in the Davis case.

In the Brown decision, the United States Supreme Court unanimously struck down the legal and moral footing of racially segregated public education in this country. The decision overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, an 1896 case which held that a state could maintain ``separate but equal'' public accommodations based on race. When Homer Adolph Plessy, who was one-eighth Black, entered a railroad car reserved by law for whites, he was arrested. He challenged the constitutionality of the law, but the Supreme Court, by a vote of seven to one, found it valid. Although Plessy concerned public accommodations, the policy rationale was applicable to public education, as well. Indeed, the court opined on that point as follows:

[W]e cannot say that a law which authorizes or even

requires the separation of the two races in public

conveyances is unreasonable, or more obnoxious to the

fourteenth amendment than the acts of congress (sic)

requiring separate schools for colored children in the

District of Columbia, the constitutionality of which does not

seem to have been questioned . . .

Justice John Marshall Harlan was the lone dissenter in the 7 to 1 decision. He wrote an opinion containing the following:

The destinies of the two races in this country are

indissolubly linked together, and the interests of both

require that the common government of all shall not permit

the seeds of race hate to be planted under the sanction of

law. What can more certainly arouse race hate, what more

certainly create and perpetuate a feeling of distrust between

these races, than state enactments which in fact proceed on

the ground that colored citizens are so inferior and degraded

that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied

by white citizens? That, as all will admit, is the real

meaning of such legislation as was enacted in Louisiana . . .

The thin disguise of ``equal'' accommodations for passengers

in railroad coaches will not misled anyone, or atone for the

wrong this day done.

In overturning Plessy, the Brown Court not only confirmed Justice Harlan's ``thin disguise'' dissenting opinion in Plessy, but also held that even if the tangible features of a segregated public education system were equal, a constitutional violation would still exist. The reasoning of the Court then is still valid today:

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of

state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance

laws and the great expenditures for education both

demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to

our democratic society. It is required in the performance of

our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the

armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship.

Today it is a principle instrument in awakening the child to

cultural values, in preparing him for later professional

training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his

environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may

reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the

opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the

state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be

made available to all on equal terms.

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of

children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even

though the physical facilities and other ``tangible'' factors

may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of

equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

The Court then discussed the impact segregation has on minority children:

To separate them from others of similar age and

qualifications solely because of their race generates a

feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community

that may affect their heart and minds in a way unlikely ever

to be undone. The effect of this separation on their

educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the

Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to

rule against the Negro plaintiffs: ``Segregation of white and

colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect

upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has

the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the

races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of

the negro (sic) group. A sense of inferiority affects the

motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction

of law, therefore, has a tendency to retard the educational

and mental development of negro (sic) children and to deprive

them of some of the benefits they would receive in a

[racially] integrated school system.''

Unfortunately, Virginia led the resistance to the Brown decision. Ironically Virginia used language in the Brown decision as legal grounds for its resistance actions:

Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to

provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on

equal terms.

Virginia reasoned that it could avoid integrating its schools by not having any schools at all. As a result, Prince Edward County closed its schools for several years, Norfolk, Front Royal and Charlottesville also closed some of their schools.

We overcame ``massive resistance'' and, today, Prince Edward County has one of the most integrated public school systems anywhere. Yet, five decades after Brown, a recent study by the Harvard Civil Rights Project revealed that many students in this country still attend schools and classes that are virtually segregated. So, while we have desegregated public schools, we have not achieved the integration that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., envisioned when he dreamed of the day ``little black boys and girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers''. In fact, the Harvard study data indicates that 70 percent of African American children attend schools that are predominately African American, about the same level as in 1968 when Dr. King died.

So, the struggle for equal educational opportunity continues. The promise of equal educational opportunity envisioned by the Brown decision remains unfulfilled. For example, equal educational opportunity does not occur when one jurisdiction spends substantially more per student than an adjacent jurisdiction because of the relative differences in wealth between the two. Unequal funding resources also results in unequal educational opportunity when you consider studies that show that one half of low income students who are qualified to attend college do not attend because they can't afford to. Another example of the educational inequality is the current debate over publicly financed school vouchers which will provide educational opportunities to a privileged handful, but deprive public schools of desperately needed resources. Also in this vein is the inappropriate use of ``high stakes'' tests, many of which are culturally biased and, therefore, diminish opportunities for some students based on their ethnicity.

A final important equal opportunity issue in education is the current attack on civil rights in the Head Start program. A slim majority of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives recently voted to weaken the 40-year ban on discrimination in hiring in the Head Start program.

Obviously, we have work to do to complete the promise of the Brown decision and Dr. King's dream for our nation. The upcoming celebration of the 50th anniversary of the decision offers us an opportunity to rededicate ourselves to achieving these lofty ideals.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the upcoming 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. It was 50 years ago that the Supreme Court unanimously decreed segregated public schools unconstitutional. The effects of that decision live on in myriad ways, and yet, in much of America, equality and integration remain ideals rather than realities.

In 1954 the U.S. Supreme Court stated that separate is inherently unequal. The Court concluded, ``that in the field of public education, the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.'' The Court found that the evils of racial segregation affected students' motivation and retarded educational and mental development.

Education is a right, not a privilege. The Court wrote: ``. . . it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he (or she) is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.''

In the 11th Congressional District of Ohio, Barbara Byrd-Bennett, CEO of the Cleveland Municipal School District continues this legacy Brown v. Board of Education, championing the rights of our young people and working to ensure that they are afforded the best education possible. Six years ago, in 1998, the Cleveland Municipal School District ranked last among Ohio school systems, and was placed in academic emergency status. Under the direction of Ms. Byrd-Bennett the Cleveland Municipal School District now stands as one of Ohio's ``most improved school districts.''

Under Ms. Byrd-Bennett's leadership academic successes are clear:

Reading scores have increased by more than 30 percent;

Children have breakfast and lunch at school at no cost, and over 93 percent are immunized;

Graduation rates have increased by 10 percent and 74 percent of last year's graduates went on to college;

Suspensions are down nearly 45 percent, expulsions are down 9 percent and assaults on students are down 13 percent;

Fourth and 6th grade reading results were up 19 percent and 28 percent, respectively, in 1 academic year; and

Only 22 percent of 4th grade students passed the State reading test in 1998 compared to 59 percent passed, in 2003, an increase of 37 percent from 5 years ago. Reading performance at the 6th grade has improved by 32 percent.

I believe that education is the key to success. I am working on behalf of all the constituents of the 11th Congressional District in Ohio to make sure that public education remains the number one issue in America. I want for those who have a desire to go to college to be prepared and equipped with the tools necessary for success.

While highlighting successes and recognizing achievements, we must also focus on current realities to further aid us in shaping national education priorities. According to the National Education Association:

Poor and minority children risk doing poorly in school. Contributing factors include: rigorous curriculum, teacher preparation/experience/ attendance, class size, technology-assisted instruction, school safety, parent participation, student mobility, birth weight, lead poisoning, and nutrition;

In 1994, 31 percent of black, 24 percent of Hispanic, and 35 percent of American Indian high school graduates took remedial courses, compared to 15 percent of whites and Asians;

Few minorities have access to or are enrolled in Advanced Placement courses,

Student achievement gap still wide; and

Only 5 percent of African American 4th grade students and 4 percent of 8th grade students met national proficiency standards in 1996.

In addition, under the Bush budget $9.4 billion less for education than was promised in the No Child Left Behind Act; this means that 2.4 million children will not get the help with reading and math they were promised. Under the Bush budget 56,000 teachers won't get trained and 1.3 million children won't get the after school programs they were promised.

According to the National Education Association, the budget eliminates funds for 38 programs, including dropout prevention and gifted and talented education, and once again fails to increase Pell Grants for our Nation's poorest college students. Yet, incredibly, the President wants $50 million for a national experiment with school vouchers, which take away much needed resources from public schools, and trillions more in tax cuts continue to flow to the wealthy.

According to Barbara Bowman, professor of early childhood education at the Erikson Institute, ``We're still quite a long way from a concerted national effort. What Brown did was make for a concerted national effort, but it required people to change. We haven't gotten that kind of centering of interest right now.''

America's public schools are dealing with a level of linguistic and cultural diversity unknown 50 years ago, when the Supreme Court outlawed school segregation in its Brown v. Board of Education decision of May 17, 1954.

Today, public schools struggling to fulfill the spirit of the Brown decision, equal access to educational opportunity for all now we have a task made more complex and difficult by an ever-growing number of students who aren't even native English speakers.

In this information-based economy, the stakes are increasingly high for those who don't get the education they need--potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in earning power over the course of a lifetime, middle class vs. minimum wage.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, more than 3.7 million public school students were offered English language learner services in the 2001-2002 academic year.

Segregated housing patterns make racially mixed schools a rarity. New York City schools, for example, have grown more segregated over the last decades. And with de facto segregation comes separate and unequal education.

Cheryl Brown Henderson, one of the children who helped desegregate public schools, brought her message to Cleveland earlier this month. Brown says over the years she's watched schools become more integrated but feels we're not there yet. ``The country is far more inclusive than it has ever been and obviously we have some unfinished business to do because not all of our schools are functioning as they should be; not all our communities are as open and inviting as they should be.''

We have come a long way; however, we still have a long way to go.

Today I rise to celebrate the anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. I am proud to be an American. I saluted African Americans like Barbara Byrd-Bennett who believed in the fight for justice, believed in their dreams for equality and continue to pave the way for a better tomorrow.